Spoken and Written Discourse in Online Interactions

A Multimodal Approach

Maria Grazia Sindoni

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781135068813
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Lingue e linguistica
• Subtopic: Studi sulla comunicazione

Winner of the AIA Book Prize for a research monograph in the field of English Language and Linguistics (2016)

Common patterns of interactions are altered in the digital world and new patterns of communication have emerged, challenging previous notions of what communication actually is in the contemporary age. Online configurations of interaction, such as video chats, blogging, and social networking practices demand profound rethinking of the categories of linguistic analysis, given the blurring of traditional distinctions between oral and written discourse in digital texts. This volume reconsiders underlying linguistic and semiotic frameworks of analysis of spoken and written discourse in the light of the new paradigms of online communication, in keeping with a multimodal corpus linguistics theoretical framework.

Typical modes of online interaction encompass speech, writing, gesture, movement, gaze, and social distance. This is nothing new, but here Sindoni asserts that all these modes are integrated in unprecedented ways, enacting new interactional patterns and new systems of interpretation among web users. These "non verbal" modes have been sidelined by mainstream linguistics, whereas accounting for the complexity of new genres and making sense of their educational impact is high on this volume' s agenda. Sindoni analyzes other new phenomena, ranging from the intimate sphere (i.e. video chats, personal blogs or journals on social networking websites) to the public arena (i.e. global-scale transmission of information and knowledge in public blogs or media-sharing communities), shedding light on the rapidly changing global web scenario.

1 Spoken and Written Discourse in the Digital Age

1.1 An Agenda for Spoken and Written Discourse

More than a decade ago, while I was writing my PhD thesis on Creole studies, my supervisor warned me that writing is permanent. I needed to be perfectly convinced about what I was embarking on, he argued, “because once you write something, it stays forever.” The slightly ominous undertone of his advice was obviously not intended for my future career and, ironically, my vivid memory of his spoken words runs exactly counter the old adage scripta manent, verba volant.

Do words fly, as they say? Or may they be as permanent, even more permanent than written words? The “I have a dream” speech by Martin Luther King in 1963, or the “Blood, sweat and tears” speech by Winston Churchill in 1940 may be two cases in point. Think of the “Quit India” speech by Mahatma Gandhi in 1942, the 2000 “Holocaust speech” by Pope John Paul II at the Israel Holocaust Memorial, the notorious 1998 “I have sinned” speech by Bill Clinton or, going back in time, the “Spanish Armada Speech” by Queen Elizabeth I in 1588. All these renowned speeches were so important during their time, rousing collective feelings or stirring public outcry. However, to counter these observations, it may be added that these speeches, once spoken, have been made permanent by writing. All of us, however, can cite some private occasion when a speech, a conversation, or even just a single utterance, has been indelibly imprinted on our memory.

This chapter addresses the question of spoken and written discourse in the light of the changes brought about by digital media, tackling the question as to whether well-established notions continue into the present age or need to be re-adjusted to fit a fluid and impermanent environment, such as that of the web. However, oral and written discourses are not clear-cut notions and several studies have shown their degree of intersections, addressing specific questions in individual texts that display oral-discourse-like and written-discourse-like features. A survey into these two language modes will thus allow a fuller appreciation of such intersections that are more than ever surrounding us in the digital scenario.

For the purposes of this volume, speech and writing will be analysed in the first part of this chapter in their abstractions, that is, in their “pure” identity, as abstract and conflicting linguistic notions, each with their own sets of features and deploying their characteristics in typical discourses. In accordance with what Halliday claims, when addressing the question of oral and written discourse, we need not think in terms of external factors, such as phonology contrasted to orthography, but in terms of the discourses originated within the spoken and written domains (Halliday 1987). In other words, a preliminary discussion will investigate conceptual and theoretical versions of spoken and written discourses, that is, those forms of textual practices and genres that may be grouped under the labels of “speech” or “writing” (e.g., informal conversations vs. novels). This will be followed in subsequent chapters by a presentation of case studies, where abstractions, categories and genres make way for impure, mixed and hybrid texts (e.g., any of the above quoted examples in a given and specific context).

Speech and writing as abstract categories may be seen as conflicting views of language modes, including a set of different linguistic traits that set them apart. However, if specific discourse instances are examined in context, their boundaries are fuzzy and neat distinctions are no more than mere naïveté. A similar example may be found in the notions of “Standard English,” “General American,” or other varieties, each of which is nonetheless connected to a community of speakers, geographical settings and contexts of situations. Categorizations, such as those of Standards, are abstractions, and varieties need to be analysed in context, as used by a group of speakers, to yield more detailed and realistic accounts. However, definitions of Standard and varieties are, nonetheless, useful for linguistic analysis or for teaching and learning purposes.

The same may be said about spoken and written discourses: they are functional models for theoretical and heuristic purposes, but individual examples, taken from both highly formalized genres (e.g., academic prose) and mundane occasions (e.g., everyday conversation), further enrich the picture, creating a mosaic of spoken and written texts, each of them with their own distinctive trait or set of traits.

The idea of a cline or a continuum to describe the ongoing and ever-changing relationship between the two poles of speech and writing may be in effect complemented or even superseded by the image of a mosaic, highlighting the indexical nature of an imaginary picture containing all possible spoken/written textual tesserae. Even more complex is the digital arena, where well-established models are challenged by intersections of technical and socio-semiotic meaning-making resources.

From a multimodal standpoint (Baldry and Thibault 2001, 2006; Kress and van Leeuwen 2001; Kress 2003; Baldry 2004; O’Halloran 2004, 2005; Jewitt 2009), each socio-semiotic resource, such as speech, image, writing, colour, layout, movement, gaze, music, and so on, is intended as a distinctive contribution to the meaning-making process. Socio-semiotic resources constitute the elements of which a text is composed. Any text is the product of these integrations, and understanding how a text works is possible when these resources are unpacked and interpreted. Verbal and non-verbal resources are integrated in multimodal texts, and especially so in digital textuality, where complex textual relationships are instantiated by the deployment of multiple resources. In other words, a website may present written text, still and moving images, videos and music. Videos, in turn, integrate spoken and written language (e.g., live interactions plus subtitling). A blog includes a wide array of resources, both verbal and non-verbal, as well as social networking digital texts. All these examples show that digital textuality is replete with a variety of verbal and non-verbal resources. But how do they work together? To what extent are they integrated? Are users responsive to verbal and non-verbal resources and to what degree? Are calamity-howlers right when complaining that the so-called digital natives will regress or are regressing into a pre-literate state? What is digital literacy, and what modifications are to be expected in traditional notions of literacy?

Speech and writing are not simple and neutral language modes used interchangeably according to the requirements of situation or speaker. They are loaded with ideological affordances that speakers, though educated and fully literate, may not be fully aware. The way oral and written discourses originated and developed in different societies in effect sheds light on such affordances and also on the way they interact within ensembles of semiotic resources to fabricate meaning-making events.

This volume investigates verbal aspects of multimodal texts in the digital world under the agenda of spoken and written discourse. Multimodal studies have laid claim to the importance of visual modes in communication, so severely neglected in other fields of studies until a couple of decades ago. Such an approach has greatly enhanced the field of investigation of nonverbal communication from socio-semiotic perspectives. Non-verbal language plays a major role in human communication, but its positioning in language studies is controversial, as everything that is not within the realm of verbal language has traditionally been held to be non-linguistic. For example, phenomena such as the design of objects and places, art and advertising were generally not considered as forms of linguistic communication (Scollon and Scollon 2009). However, multimodal studies in broad terms redress such a balance, adopting a more comprehensive approach to human communication. Psychology and cognitive sciences are still studying the impact of non-verbal communication from numerous standpoints, whereas linguistics has conventionally excluded it from its domain of enquiry and epistemological terrain.

Multimodal studies have been providing a refreshing new perspective on research on communication and language, but have sometimes occasioned a presumably involuntary backwash: verbal modes, namely spoken and written, have been left somewhat behind, trapped in the complex realignments of language studies and in the old dichotomy of speech and writing. Far from re-presenting a monolithic approach that refers back to exclusivist linguistic models, this volume addresses the question of verbal communication in a multimodal world. Speech and writing are considered as language modes and as semiotic resources at the same time, on a par with image, colour and music.

As images were gaining momentum in the era of visual communication, language, and its meta-languages, were trapped into an epistemological vacuum, in some instances lacking a full and comprehensive insight into contemporary communication. However, verbal language has come back with a vengeance in today’s communication, and theoretical reinterpretations are needed to fit traditional linguistic categories into new—or apparently new—textual configurations. Speech and writing are being sent out of the door, but come in through the window.

This chapter, and the volume in general, is an attempt at tackling these issues, trying to restore the balance between traditional linguistic categories, such as those of speech and writing, and a wider array of socio-semiotic resources. Its underlying rationale is grounded in the belief that verbal modes of speech and writing are still useful heuristic categories for exploring multimodal communication. Far from believing that CMC (computer-mediated communication) makes these categories “useless” (Goddard 2004), as CMC further blurs binary oppositions that have always characterized speech and writing, this book is based on the assumption that CMC needs to be embedded in previous well-established linguistic notions. Much research on CMC, as Herring has pointed out (2013), has thrown the baby out with the bath-water. Whereas binary oppositions are not flexible models for observations, they are nonetheless valuable to build a model made up of discrete, and thus separately analysable paradigms.

In the next two paragraphs, two perspectives will be examined, clarifying two complementary views on speech and writing. The first is a sociohistorical account of orality and literature, providing a concise history of speech and writing, seen from the perspective of social sciences, literature and humanities. This is to investigate how these modes are applied for aesthetic and socially codified purposes in different models of societies, in particular contrasting Western and “Third-World” societies. This preliminary introduction lays the foundations for the linguistic perspective treated in the second part of the chapter, and will unearth the ideological implications behind the oral/literate divide. The second paragraph deals with similar questions, but from a linguistic point of view, discussing speech and writing and their reciprocal relationship as they are used in everyday contexts of communication and for common communicative purposes. These two different approaches are complementary in that they both focus on how people use speech and writing in a given context to meet communicative needs. However, literary approaches tended to impinge on how language modes used to be perceived or stigmatized in a given social context, for example attaching values or flaws to their use or presumed misuse. Modern linguistics, as we will see, has redressed the balance, putting emphasis on differences in practices and discourses, thus removing typical stigma attributed to both speech and writing in communities of practice.

A preliminary discussion on orality and literature will pave the way for the contribution provided by linguistics, with the goal of unravelling social and ideological implications of the speech-writing dyad, if any, that is particularly relevant to be addressed in the digital age. Finally, the third part of the chapter will outline how speech and writing are adapted in web-based environments, giving rise to text types that conflate specific features of the oral-discourse and written-discourse genres, outlining the agenda and methods that will be developed in the subsequent chapters.

The discussion on orality and literature that follows, far from being a foray into non-relevant areas of studies, is of seminal importance for the concerns of this volume, as it addresses the question of speech and writing in the context of twentieth-century intellectual movements.

1.2 A Sociocultural Outline of the History of Orality and Literature

Questions about speech, writing and their reciprocal relationship have always been complex, and their relationship is a core notion in explorations on language tout court (Vansina [1961] 2006). Theoretical reflections on speech and writing have tended to oppose or complement each other. Speech and writing seem intuitively different, as are the discourses that may be ascribed to each of them. But how do they differ? Are these differences still relevant in the digital age?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary (www.etymonline.com), text derives from the “wording of anything written,” from Old French texte (late-fourteenth century), Old North French tixte (twelfth century), from Medieval Latin textus “the Scriptures, text, treatise,” in Late Latin “written account, content, characters used in a document,” from classical Latin textus “style or texture of a work.” The latter means literally “thing woven” from the past participle stem of texere “to weave,” from the Proto-Indo-European base *tek- “make.” From this very concise and easily available online account, it is possible to get a glimpse of the strong and continuous tradition that links the notion of textuality with writing and production, interpreted as both fabricating things and interweaving elements. The structural idea was later associated with the concept of writing in Latin, with the adjunct of style and the later addition of the notion of written account in Late Latin, which, in turn, became the writing par excellence, the Bible in the Medieval Latin period. Etymology is thus a practical tool for unearthing how associations are accrued in a lexical item.

Hence, text and written words are inextricably linked, as an etymological analysis shows. Yet a significant number of societies were very far from construing their experience of culture and cultural transmission via written texts.

From the beginning of the twentieth century, a terminological debate and ensuing scholarly discussions on orality and oral literatures gained momentum. The concept itself of “oral literature” sounds rather paradoxical, in that it blends together two apparently conflicting notions, speech (i.e., “oral”) and writing (i.e., “literature”). How can they coexist? However, the question is ill defined in these terms, as oral literatures, which do not exclusively pertain to pre-literate societies, share some essential traits with written literatures, if we consider their overall social and cultural significance. Despite the epistemological impossibility of comparing oral with written genres, rituals, traditional ballads, heroic poems and many other contemporary oral genres, such as pop songs, folk, reggae and protest songs, represent culture and traditions of the societies in which they were composed as much as written literature does.

Oral and written literatures are, from this perspective, not the two sides of the same coin, as they originate in different genres, and this assumption possibly still proves true in the digital world. Furthermore, their traditions are imbued with different contexts and societies, and, if examples are selected for analysis, their common ground becomes loose and diluted.

With regard to their dissimilarities, mention should be made about their different modes of transmission, which influence the genre’s constitutive features. Its durability and the degree of preservation of orally transmitted compositions vary accordingly. Additionally, oral literature is highly dependent on context and mainly relies on performance. Hence, studies and interpretations need to take performativity into account. But in practice, until relatively recent times, performativity has been disregarded in research literature. Performance, however, is also a seminal feature of web-based phenomena: an example is found in YouTube videos, where video makers are likely to produce performances of various kinds and the same may be said about video bloggers. However, performance as a complex multimodal and multisemiotic event has been neglected until recently in studies on oral literature. Furthermore, instances of video clips (or vlogs) are far from being considered as instantiations of “orality,” which is actually coming back with a vengeance in web-based environments, as Ong predicted in the late Seventies (1977).

This is why studies on oral literatures were traditionally biased for most of the twentieth century, as they were based on aesthetic canons thriving in written (and Euro-centred) literatures. Despite its highly complex aesthetics, oral literature used to be considered the product of “inferior societies,” and, as such, was deemed as not deserving serious intere...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Appendixes
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 Spoken and Written Discourse in the Digital Age
• 2 Spontaneous Web-based Video Interactions
• 3 Writing Out into the Abyss: Polymorphic BlogEng
• 4 Interacting on a Global Scale: Speech and Writing in YouTube Comments
• Conclusions
• References
• Index